I am convinced that gods don’t exist

Then you have defeated your own conviction. If you can not do all of them, you have no justification for being convinced that gods don’t exist. Like most atheists, all you are asserting is that “I have never seen a good argument for the existence of a god that can stand against critical inquiry.” By taking it a step further, and asserting ‘no gods exist,’ you are indulging in a ‘Black Swan Fallacy.’ Just because you have not seen it, does not make it so.


Me too. I think they’re all a made up fantasy that man made years and years ago.

We don’t have to care what the concepts are, or how they differ, all we need do is weigh each claim when they are presented.

We start at that point obviously as we start by knowing nothing at all about god claims, and knowing nothing at all about a concept means we necessarily lack belief, we cannot really do otherwise.

Me to and since my religion is Infinity it has no gods to worship.

Me too, not to, and your profile says you’re an agnostic, so making a claim no gods exist is a glaring contradiction.

What does that even mean?

You can’t to know this, or anything else about any deity, and simultaneously claim to be an agnostic in your profile.

I find it fascinating when people use the same words and they have different meanings to that word. Especially when those differences are quite large. “Agnostic” is one of those words where this commonly occurs.

I know several people who identify as “Catholic”, but don’t 100% subscribe to the dogma of the Catholic Church. Do you call these people “mostly Catholic” or “Culturally Catholic”? What about the very religious people who claim to have been an atheist, but clearly weren’t!

Further, many people don’t like to self-identify as “Atheist” because they think the term has pretty severe negative connotations. I see the term “Agnostic” used a lot in this context.

I find it bizarre when people use a word that is at odds with the dictionary definition, and in my experience it rarely bodes well for any claims arguments or assertions they are making.

If someone claimed to be Catholic, then I’d accept the claim prima facie, however if they also made a claim that directly contradicted this, then I would question it, as I do when people claim to be agnostic, then make assertions to know anything about the nature or existence of any deity, since the two are mutually exclusive.


  1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

True, however they either are or are not an atheist, and how that is perceived by others is irrelevant to that. On here they need not share any personal details, so the point is moot.

I see it misused as often as I see religious apologists try to misrepresent atheism as a belief or claim, this is unnecessary and misleading on here, so people get called on it, whether it is deliberate mendacity or simple ignorance. What’s astonishing is anyone can search the definition of a word in seconds online, why would anyone not do this first, and why would they think they can bluff others who can do the same, it makes no sense to me.

It’s worth noting that some god claims and concepts of deity might be unfalsifiable, but this is not always the case, thus I would be agnostic about them only if they were unfalsifiable, and even then would remain disbelieving since one cannot evidence an unfalsifiable claim, and believing them all would lead to irrational contradictions, whereas believing some must necessitate bias for or against, but withholding belief from all is both rationally consistent, and unbiased, and therefore open minded.

Agnostic is used incorrectly in this context by cowards who refuse to answer the question:

“What do you believe.” No one has asked them, yet, if they have any actual knowledge.

‘Gnosis’ is Greek and literally means "KNOWLEDGE.
From this, we get the word ‘Gnostic.’ "to know’ or ‘able to know.’

The question being asked is ‘NOT’ what do you ‘KNOW.’ The question being asked is “What do you believe.”

Both Christians and Atheists can be Agnostic. An agnostic Christian is called a “Doubting Thomas” and the bible is very clear on this matter… John 20:29 " Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Blaise Pascal, a rebound mathematician supported the idea of being an Agnostic Christian with the very famous “Pascal’s Wager.” (You look it up. It’s so basic to the Agnostic Christian as to be a waste of time for me to review it.)

Pascal does not answer the question “What do you believe.” The Bible does not answer the question “What do you believe.” Both assert that if you are a non-believer, it is best to profess belief and be rewarded, even if you are an agnostic (Without any knowledge) than it is to be atheistic and admit openly that (You have no knowledge).

It is not a matter of using definitions in unique ways. It is a matter of being a coward and refusing to tell people what you actually believe. This is true whether you find yourself believing some days and not believing on other days. What you believe is not necessarily linked to what you know. Especially when it comes to claims of the supernatural, like religions.

With that said… Agnostics are atheists, even if they deny being atheists. My argument for this is simple. The god most people cite as being God is all-knowing. He knows your heart and he knows your thoughts. MATTHEW 7:21 “21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!”

The god of the Bible and the Quran are very specific about how they are to be loved. (Complet Surrender and Obedience. To be Loved before all else.) How is it an agnostic Christian can do that?
Like Pascal’s wager, the Agnosic Christian is only believing in God to avoid the punishment of hell. Is this an adequate reason to believe in God? Not according to the bible. " Jesus replied, “'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind ’ This is the first and greatest commandment." An agnostic is incapable of this kind of love.

Agnostic Christians must necessarily believe for the wrong reasons. How many of your friends are your friends because you expect to be rewarded by them? How many of your friends are your friends because if you do not befriend them, they will torture you? The agnostic Christian is attempting to fool good. They are attempting to believe in God anyway to avoid hell and reap the rewards of heaven. This is NOT what the bible says to do. This is NOT the love the ‘LORD’ commands. Having no knowledge of God and believing based on falsehoods, the Agnostic Christian is doomed by the very teachings of the belief system they profess to be true.

Agnosticism is about what you KNOW.
Atheism is about what you believe to be true.

So, what do you believe? “I am agnostic.” is not an answer. It is a dodge.


I find it fascinating when someone logs into the site professing agnosticism, not knowing what the word means or how it is properly used, and then begins spouting bullshit instead of defending their own position.

Raëlism teaches that an extraterrestrial species known as the Elohim created humanity using their advanced technology. An atheistic religion, it holds that the Elohim have historically been mistaken for gods.

Is there a reason you call yourself a Raekian? Do you have any evidence at all for Raelianism?

This doesn’t just apply to his name of course, since in that post @RichardtheRaelian seemed to profess agreement with the thread title assertion that “gods don’t exist”, whilst paradoxically professing to be an agnostic in his profile.

It’s also me too, not me to (sic), let’s hope that one is just a typo.

Yikes that is one of the grammar errors I make. The other is typing their when I mean there. It doesn’t seem to make a difference that I know the difference my fingers just refuse to follow directions.

1 Like

The one that really bugs me, and is incredibly common, is your vs you’re

1 Like

It’s a pretty easy one to learn as well, so is the difference between their, possessive pronoun, and they’re, which is an abbreviation of they are. I have no idea how people manage to confuse either of those with there?

One that made my teeth itch recently was anxiousness, I kid you fucking not…I think the rot started with agressiveness tbh…

Maybe I am a little more forgiving, but some grammatical errors don’t bother me as much as obvious misspellings. That means the poster didn’t proofread. How am I supposed to take a post seriously if the poster can’t even be bothered to check their spelling?

I feel like the Christians rigged the definition of “Agnostic” like they’re still trying to constantly rig the definition of Atheism. It is a very lazy as fuck answer. When someone says they’re “agnostic”, I really do feel like they’re just saying that to dodge the question.

If you’re oh CD tick’s you off, remember that when you conversate with some one, its the IDs in the content that carries importantness, not the grammer and spelling. Irregardless, focus at the beam in you’re own i’s before you look at the sawdust in the i’s of other’s.


Very good, fair play. Now have a guess how many failed attempts there were, before I was able to read that all the way through? :smirk: :grimacing:

To read it or to understand it? Thrice? Quadrice?

1 Like

That’s the thing, my understanding was being punctuated, like trying to read something, and every other word someone was shaking the page around for a few seconds. Though I do understand your point, and a lot of my comments are just sarcasm, some of it aimed at my own OCD. I am not unable to laugh at myself thank fuck. Nor does anyone have to conform to my view of how things ought to be written, nor me to anyone else’s, though paradoxically a few seconds can often bt ehe ulrset ntebewe a gilebel tncesen, and complete gibberish. :wink: :smirk:

It took five attempts btw, and I really had to grit my teeth on the last one. :grimacing:

1 Like

So mission accomplishment achieved then? :wink: